15 September 2010

I was going to go on this back-half of the year taking a look at the BioLogos positions on the Bible and especially origins, but they're going to take all the fun out of it.

On 2 Sept 2010, they tipped their hand the rest of the way -- and let me say it plainly: we told you so. Phil and I told you that they could not start down the path they were on hermeneutically and not end up here:

In the final chapter of Evolution Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution (2008), Denis O. Lamoureux opens, “My central conclusion in this book is clear: Adam never existed, and this fact has no impact whatsoever on the foundational beliefs of Christianity.” This is the first entry in a three-part series, in which Lamoureux answers the question: Was Adam a Real Person?

So all the folks defending BioLogos have to face up to it: it was never about whether or not there were days or ages in Genesis 1; it was never about reconciling Gen 1 and Gen 2 to "science". It was always explicitly about what it means to say, "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth," and then "the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature" without it meaning that God actually, really, historically did something.

That's really all that needs to be said: they reject the historical Adam. After that, it's only a matter of a few faculty meetings before they have called Jesus a manifestation of first century Jewish imagination and a deconstructing of Greek ethos to suit the likes of Philo and Paul.

Don't think so? You didn't think they'd reject Adam as a historical person, either. There's no sense fighting about it when any milestone that can be set up and then passed by these guys is not seen by their advocates as the bridge too far.

272 comments:

Yep, I agree, Frank. There really isn't anything else that needs to be said about BioLogos. Deny the 1st Adam, then the 2nd Adam and Paul's "Spirit" spirated argument spirals out of control and ends us up in a Schleiermachian religion of pietistic 'introvertism' that "thinks, therefore I am". --- and not He is (Ex 3.15).

I'll go against the grain here, and link to some posts by a conservative theologian who is sympathetic to six-day creation, but nevertheless believes that the "creation science" movement has some serious theological problems.

I'd encourage folk to read this and the other parts, and to engage with his argument. Remember - he is not attacking belief in 6-day creation per se, rather he is attacking the theological foundations of the institutional CS movement.

I have always wondered about your“It’s an Ogur! grab your torches and sharpen your pitch forks” approach when you go toe-to-toe with the liberal, inclined. Then I read Mark 7, and listened to Allistar Begg. Jesus was gentile and concerned with the honest inquirer but, when it came to the Pharisees, with their open disbelieve and covered opposition, it was a totally different story.My torch is lit and the fork is sharpened, let’s have at them. Let us also be careful. Only the smallest seed of unbelief and the smallest doubt can wreck our faith if left unchecked. Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. Most liberals started with the highest regard to scripture, many of them also listened to scripture and digressed into opposing it.O pray, that our high regard for scripture will not be chipped away, “Pull up the draw bridge, man the towers, look to the hills.” Will not help if we let the enemy in, by the side door.Look to your life and learning, Improve your theological grid.If I go on, much longer I’m going to pass the offering plate.I think I’m preaching to the choir, pleading that you would stay just that, the armed choir.

Frank: Do you have any reservations about the slippery slope style of argument that you're using here?

For example, you seem to think that it's just obvious that reading the account of Adam non historically has exactly as much merit as reading the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus non historically. Or at any rate, you seem to think that once we do one, we'll invetiably, eventually at least, do the other.

What would you make of the claim advanced by a person who regarded themselves as a fairly conservative evangelical that actually there are important intentional differences in genre between the two? I mean obviously you don't currently believe that. But would you really be quick to accuse that person of setting themselves up to deny that the Gospels are intended as historical biography?

In other words, I think you appeal to the slippery slope a little too easily here.

We don't have to reconcile our belief in ex nihilio with science. We can't...it goes against science. We also believe Christ restored a withered hand, restored blind eyes from birth, walked on water and calmed the wind and sea. These contradict the laws of nature according to man's laws that he has discovered...but not according to the laws of the One who created them.

We don’t come to this belief by reasoning, we come to it by grace through faith by the Holy Spirit.

Question…regarding the man with the withered hand…if someone looked at the man’s hand after it was restored…not knowing it had just been restored…would they say it was as old as him or that it was brand new? We know it was brand new but I’m sure it looked old…

Whether or not the person considers himself conservative doesn't mean that he is right. I can't think of anybody who would tell me that Genesis is not written as a historical text and have me respect that teaching (notice I didn't attack the person, but the teaching). I can read the context myself and tell that it is historical.

So I'd say your slippery slope is a fallacy here because the foundation of Genesis not being historical is not solid.

The moment you believe in a story of origins, you agree to be catechized by whomever it was that wrote the story. Origins are foundational.

If I am the way I am because I evolved that way, doesn't work.

We're not talking about slippery slopes. We're talking about fruit from a tree. Bad foundations. Yeast in bread.

God gave us the story in the way that He did in order to be believed, and Jesus (being one with Him) confirmed it. For that matter, the Holy Spirit sees fit to testify the same thing when He gives us the wherewithal to confess that Jesus is Lord.

Craig,Mark Baddeley's critique "Problems with Creation Science 1: Absence of a Theology of Creation" is cloaked in a supercilious tone of moral authority that the details aren't important, God didn't want us to know the details, and Christians are wrong when they focus on the details. It's the ole' Framework Hypothesis view of creation he alludes to, without actually using those words.

The Framework Hypothesis view has been thoroughly critiqued by John Pipa and others and a search on the web will lead one to some great articles. FH states that the 6 days of creation are historical, but not necessarily rooted in a particular point of history. As such it is a compromise view that accommodates old earth views of the earth, and secular scientific understandings of origins, all the while saying that the Bible is okay with this.

FH does not do a good job of grappling with the actual text, and you'll notice in Baddeley's article he doesn't either.

In other words, as Pastor John MacArthur has recently said, "The so-called Framework Hypothesis and every other literary trick to prove that Genesis 1-3 doesn't mean what it seems to say are all de facto rejections of the authority and perspicuity of Scripture. They represent a refusal to allow Scripture to mean what it plainly says, while relying on novel theories no one every imagined before to explain the 'true' albeit 'hidden' meaning of the text--as if no one unsophisticated enough to deconstruct the literary genre could possibly understand what God was trying to tell us. That is as wrong-headed as it is arrogant."

@Glenn: I do not think it is a "Slippery slope" argument at all the way I read it. It is much like a church saying, "We do not believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ"...what then follows is nothing less than common sense, should one start off at the point.

When we dismiss the first Adam it only makes sense that we would dismiss other things connected to it: Jesus, who was perfect, appeals to a real and concrete Adam and Eve when he talks about divorce. Paul, when speaking of sin in Romans 6, brings up the sin of a real and concrete Adam and he does this again in 2 Timothy when he lays down his reasoning for Women not having authority over men. So we would have to say that both Paul AND Jesus were terribly mistaken.

Aside from that you also have to take into account another issue: When DO you start taking Scripture literally if not at the beginning? Why would someone not throw out the Biblical account of the Flood or the Tower of Babel? Was Abraham a real person, or just an extended parable of living by faith? Sounds silly, but once you throw out a real and historical First Adam, you have to justify taking ANY of it literally.

You're counting on N.T. Wright as a good reliable source? Really? The man who tried to redefine what Paul was saying? Or is there some other N.T. Wright that I don't know about?

And Keller's paper/article was handled on here just last week. You know, the one where he tries to bridge the gap between two beliefs that are totally exclusive of each other and cannot be reconciled?

I'm not sure how I feel about all of what Keller teaches (I haven't seen enough), but I sure know that I'm not going anywhere near N.T. Wright. Anybody who tries to convince me that Romans 2:13 means that I can get to heaven by being judged for my good works totally misses a whole lot of Scripture(Romans 3:10-17, 23; Isaiah 64:6; James 2:10 just to name a few).

Thanks for your comments, but I don't consider them a real attempt to engage what Mark has said. Saying, "Oh, this is the FH, and others have already repudiated that" is a flippant dismissal, not a serious critique.

Mark says explicitly at the top that he believes his views are compatible with six day creation. What he has attempted to do (and you will need to read the whole series) is to ask, "What is the actual theology of the CS movement?"

I've been surprised to see some Reformed folk especially happily get into bed with CS people whose theology they wouldn't otherwise touch with a barge pole. The assumption is, perhaps, that they can take the scientific conclusions of CS and leave behind any theological assumptions. But I think that view is naive.

It's not over-reaching when BioLogos has explicitly dismissed the Historical Adam. They have done so in the linked articles.

Please read those links. My suggestion to Dr. Keller and Bishop Wright is that they make a decision about whether or not they can support an effort which dismisses the theological Adam. If their objective in collaborating with BioLogos is to tell the truth to them and exort them away from error, that's a good work. If their objective is to say, 'well, I believe the orthodox faith but these other fellows have something I can't be forced to agree with me, and can't we all just get along...' I think there's a more-troublesome issue.

Craig,What are you trying to show/prove by referencing this article by Baddeley?

If I am misunderstanding your motive or the motive of Baddely, then let us engage on that motive, but please state your motive clearly.

If your comeback is that you 'have' stated your motive, viz.,that the Creation Science movement has missed the larger theological issues, then I would have to disagree and challenge you to support these allegations.

If you truly understand the Framework Hypothesis view, then I think you can see the same motifs in the article by Baddeley, and this was what I was alluding to.

If you want to deny that he was alluding to FH, but that he is proposing something 'novel' that 'no one' has ever thought of before, then you may do so, but then please be open to challenges from myself and others that the canard that CS doesn't take the larger theological issues in mind is just that, 'canard, not substantiated, baloney'.

Craig #2,Regarding those "critiques:" That fellow was sort of all over the map with what he was suppose to be "critiquing." Maybe I need to read some more, but with just the one link you provide, he doesn't really offer any compelling argument that the theological foundations of the main, biblical creation apologetic ministries are unsound (I'm thinking AiG and CMI specifically). He may not like their polemics in some areas, but theologically unsound? I don't see it.

I truly understand it and will say emphatically, and without any hint of being nice, that it's heresy. Talk about novel. It was formulated in the 1920s and I can assure you NO ONE saw that hermeneutic in Genesis 1 before then.

BioLogos tries to make it clear in the introduction that it does not take sides on the historicity of Adam and Eve, although they were not, we believe, the sole biological progenitors of all human kind. (I realize that most readers of this blog don't trust the genetics data, but we do.)

So that leaves two possibilities as we see it: A historical couple, who although not the sole genetic progenitors of all humankind, they were a historical couple nonetheless, and, secondly, the view espoused by Denis in his current series. Denis' view is just that--Denis' view. We've also discussed William Dembski's view and have done so in an appreciative manner. N.T. Wright and Tim Keller have both expressed their views on our site and they also believe in a historical Adam.

I think the problem with your premise is that as a Christian, you must take a side on that issue...the Bible does. When we read in Romans about sin entering the world through Adam and Jesus coming as the second Adam, how are we supposed to understand it any other way than each of them being a historical man? And when the serpent talks to Eve, and then Eve to Adam, and they both sin, how should we understand that? And when God speaks to each of them individually, how are we supposed to understand that if they are not historical figures?

There is no wiggle room here, sir, and I have no problem saying that to anybody. I stand on the Word of God and will not fear any man regarding this issue, regardless of his academic accolades or theological writings. My hope is that more people will put down the theoretical chasings of philosophers disguising themselves as scientists and humbly submit themselves to the authority of the Bible. Quit trying to dabble with making sense of miracles because there is no way to get there scientifically.

I am always stirred by the gracious interaction of Pyromaniacs with those who don't hold to neo-Calvinistic doctrine.

To say this: 'That's really all that needs to be said: they reject the historical Adam. After that, it's only a matter of a few faculty meetings before they have called Jesus a manifestation of first century Jewish imagination and a deconstructing of Greek ethos to suit the likes of Philo and Paul.'

Why do we have to be so reactionary to these issues? Why do we always believe that A must lead down the slippery slope to B. I do believe Peter Enns does a good job in addressing such questions and accusations in this video interview: http://bit.ly/b4BevO.

Does anyone ever notice how quick people are to generally dismiss "slippery slope" arguments? Why is it then that we eventually see a lot of "slip slidin' away?"

The Word of God is one huge warning against the slippery slope. God knows how prone mankind is to fall off of the edge, and it usually doesn't take much of a push. In fact, sometimes mankind cannonballs right into the canyon.

Luke 3 and 4 are full of the proclamations that Jesus is Son of God and that the Holy Spirit is upon Him. If end of Luke 3 is a lie (Jesus is declared to be a son of Adam who himself was a son of God) then the two passages that are linked by that genology are not to be trusted.

The Spirit descending on Jesus and the Father declaring that He is His Son? This Son of God being filled with Spirit and led by Him into the wilderness? Neither of those things make sense if Adam is not a real man.

Why do we have to be so reactionary to these issues? Why do we always believe that A must lead down the slippery slope to B.

Because theology matters and it is just a fact of the historical record of the Church that when one heresy is embraced, such as the so-called "genetic" data must re-interpret the infallible historical record God divinely revealed, a cascading of heresy follows close behind to eventually men scorn God. Apostate Ken Pulliam being the prime example.

I was thinking about this this morning before ever seeing this post. If one is willing to deny that the first Adam was a historical person, then what prevents you from denying that the last Adam was, in fact, also a historical person?

If anybody is interested, at T4G, R.C. Sproul went through a history of the church and the various syntheses with the beliefs of the world that have lead to heretical movements. I think it is quite applicable to the topic here, as the efforts of some (like Tim Keller) to reconcile the two beliefs will only serve to lead people in the church away from the authority of the Bible.

comment_last biologos postBioLogos...does not take sides on the historicity of Adam and Eve...BioLogos is a place for discussion.

Leaving aside the almost emerg*-like nature of that last statement, it seems to me that Biologos takes no position on anything, except that all Scripture must be reconciled to the current conception of science.

But then, that's kinda the issue here, whether science is interpreted by Scripture, or whether Scripture is interpreted by science. Looking for scientific explanations of miracles is like listening for the sound of one-hand clapping. And about as useful.

You can bury your head in the sand and pretend that scientific data does not exist or is being misinterpreted by those hateful atheists just asfaithful Mormons dowith regard to DNA evidence that refutes their holy book or you can attempt to reinterpet your holy book as the folks at Biologos are doing or you can just recognize that holy books are not really of divine origin as I have done.

Did you do the research and figure out all the DNA stuff yourself? Did you bother taking a class in Microbiology or was that just too hard and you counted on somebody else to tell you what they think? The reason I ask is that my wife became even more amazed at the work of God upon her studies during nursing school. There is NO WAY that evolution can make sense of how human organisms work. It's impossible.

Now for people who "lost their faith" (meaning they were not of us in the first place, as John wrote) or to those who flat out deny God and the authority of the Bible, the only choice they are left with is to try to explain it all away. But their explanantions (or your "proof") are all folly.

What, exactly, is your purpose for reading and commenting here? Why do you feel so compelled to read material that you obviously hold in disdain? Can you really believe that in your atheistic, morally relative world your comments are worthwhile in any way? You seem obsessed with popping in regularly to distract from meaningful conversation. Is there a reason for your obsession? Dismissive responses to that question such as "I guess I like to see a good train wreck" don't really get to the heart of the matter. So, what really draws you here time and time again?

You responded to my words: Why do we have to be so reactionary to these issues? Why do we always believe that A must lead down the slippery slope to B.

But it has not led to the slippery slope of denying Jesus Christ, His bodily resurrection, etc, etc.

So, I do believe it is dangerous to consider that. But, rather than saying, 'Oh you guys are crazy. You accept this and I know one day you will accept this also,' can we not say something better like: 'I don't agree with your conclusions about the historicity of Adam. I also believe it can affect your Christology and soteriology. So I would encourage and challenge you to not head in some dangerous directions.'

Well I expect this comment section to be closed anytime now as happened the last time I was here. Or perhaps you will just delete my comments. Reminds me of that Jack Nicholson line in the movie: "You can't handle the truth."

DJP wants me to address the science of a talking serpent. I guess after that we can talk about the science of flying horses (as Muhammad rode) or perhaps some other interesting teaching from a holy book.

I think an elementary student could tell you that serpents do not have vocal cords nor do they have the mental capability for human language. But of course that is science; it does not take into account the possiblity of fairies, elves, angels, and other such things that certain primitive books do. They are just biased against the supernatural, those evil atheists.

But it has not led to the slippery slope of denying Jesus Christ, His bodily resurrection, etc, etc.

I don't know your background but two things: You need to pick up a reliable Church History and then spend some time reading over the Biologos "Evangelicals and Atheists Together" website and you will clearly see documentation of my assertion. If anything, read Psalm one. The biblical pattern is clear, deny what God has clearly revealed and the next steps degenerates to being a scoffer.

I'm confused as to why we're engaging this Ken character at all. Why doesn't he just say "Go read David Hume on the issue, because clearly I will have nothing to add", and then we can all agree that yes, miracles don't accord with the natural order of things. No kidding.

Are we in the twilight zone or what here? Some of these comments are not even logical. Let's start with...

Steve Gentry said "You're overreaching here Frank."

Wow. Frank has them red-handed saying Adam was not a real person (which the Savior confirms was a real person), and Frank is the one accused of overreaching? Some of these people take Darwin's title the "Descent of Man" too literal and think it means to descend into illogical thinking.

prodigalthoughts.net said "Why do we have to be so reactionary to these issues? Why do we always believe that A must lead down the slippery slope to B. I do believe Peter Enns does a good job in addressing such questions and accusations"

Are you serious? Enns, the guy who denies innerrancy in the Bible, is your credible resource? He starts off the video saying Paul was wrong and continues with seeing how much of the Bible we can deny and still call ourselves Christian. "Paul does not determine that issue for us" really means "the Bible does not determine if Adam was real or not". Who does determine then, Mr. Enns? Oh, that's right, man does, through science of course!

Prodigal, why must we always assume 1+1 always lead down the slippery slope to equaling 2?

I'm listening, Ken. Is it your desire to persuade those of us who are not 'agnostic atheists' to come over to your side, or are you simply having some fun at our expense? I'm sure you realize from your Christian theological background and training that we are all 'evil', not just the atheists. So it is quite a miscaricature to infer that we are all involved in some sort of 'evil-atheist' bashing.

As to the truth, I take it that you don't believe Jesus' words that 'I am the way, the 'truth' and the life..., but that you accept only scientific truth based on empirical observation?

So if true, then we must challenge your epistemic certainty for 'knowledge', shall we not? Isn't this where you 'having once tasted of the truth, rejecting it and now trample underfoot the Son of God', now proclaim with loud vociferousness your opposition to this Son of God as the basis for epistemic certainty?

dfalk said '(I realize that most readers of this blog don't trust the genetics data, but we do.)'

By genetics data, I assume he means the genetics data acquired from Adam and Eve; I wounder when their bodies were discovered and the DNA samples taken? Since to infer the genetics of Adam and Eve from any other source you would have to rely on many presuppositions. I wounder what those presuppositions are?

So let me get this straight. Along with all the other nonsense in regard to BioLogos that has been presented here, Frank now shows them denying the historical Adam and there are professing Christians coming on here giving Frank a hard time?!?

Unbelievable!

Thanks for reminding me why I don’t have my own blog.

God bless those at Pyro for not only working hard to expose nonsense like BioLogos but for having the patience to deal with those that lack the discernment to be able to do so themselves.

Ken indulges his problems with remaining on-topic for two paragraphs, then attempts this:

I think an elementary student could tell you that serpents do not have vocal cords nor do they have the mental capability for human language. But of course that is science; it does not take into account the possiblity of fairies, elves, angels, and other such things that certain primitive books do. They are just biased against the supernatural, those evil atheists.

I'm sorry... you were supposed to be answering me. Did you have a disputant on another blog who argues that snakes speak all the time? If so, that might be a good answer.

That isn't the contention of any Christian, of course.

If you want to snort that the talking serpent (presumably of Genesis 3) cannot be "historical," under cover of Science, then you must prove that it is impossible that one serpent spoke on one occasion.

Your next published comment will either prove that, the only point in contention, or admit that you were mistaken.

The genetics issue really does high-light the authority issue (as if it was ever in questions...)

Do we believe, as Mr. Faulk does, that the geneticists have it right, when they claim that Adam and Eve couldn't be the first parents of the entire human race, or does the Bible have it right when it calls Eve "the mother of all living"?

The geneticists need to go back to the drawing board, and I'm more than a little surprised that any Christian doesn't see that.

It is always humorous (and frustrating) when unteachable evolutionary/atheistic trolls (Mr. Pulliam being the prime example again) pull their pet red-herring out of their pockets and try to make the historicity of Adam a science-vs-religion issue rather than the ideas-have-consequences issue that it is.

Frank's post (and every freaking post that he has ever done on BioLogos) has never, ever been about how "evil" science is. It is (and has always been) about how BioLogos is out for compromise rather than any kind of real "discussion" and about how dangerous their compromises can and will be.

You said: you must prove that it is impossible that one serpent spoke on one occasion . Sheesh. Well then you must prove that it is impossible that one horse flew to heaven with Muhammad on his back.

Come on people, if the serpent mentioned in Genesis 3 is like serpents we see today (and your inerrant book doesn't say there was anything unique about that serpent), then of course he couldn't speak. Note your inerrant text does not say that the devil spoke through him; it says that the serpent spoke.

Who knows perhaps in ancient times serpents spoke and horses flew, if one accepts a holy book as the final word on the matter.

I was unable to tell you this on a previous comment thread (the one that was shutdown after "ReformedPuritan" accused you of...something stupid, whatever), but "demonaise" is my new favorite word. I plan to use it often in mixed conversation.

In fact...

It seems that Mr. Pulliam and Mr. Falk/Faulk have been attempting to spread the demonaise all over this comment thread. Just sayin'.

Whether or not snakes have vocal folds is superfluous. Science is concerned with repeatable, demonstrable evidence. Miracles are not repeatable or demonstrable, unless you are God! The ultimate failing of BioLogos, or any other attempt to reconcile the shifting “truth” of science with scripture, is the inevitable train wreck that occurs when God makes an exception to the created order and science attempts to explain it from within that order. Ain’t gonna work.

Too bad Darrel Falk won’t admit the possibility that the evidence God left behind, no matter where it points, isn’t to be trusted in and of itself – God could make it look as old, young, or diverse as He wanted. This is the essence of faith: will we take God at His word, or won’t we? (Abraham believed God, and He counted it righteousness, and Abraham did soprior to having the whole picture. Repeat story over and over in scripture.) For God to have purposefully made the universe look old, or a DNA record diverse, may have some functional advantages, but it also serves as a test of whether we’re willing to submit our hearts to what He has revealed in scripture. Conflicts? That simply means we don't have the whole story yet. Since science is only good until its next earthshattering discovery, one had best define “truth” and sticking one’s head in the sand according to 2 Peter 3:3-7, and the error demonstrated in v.4: “For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” Nope, things aren’t always how they appear to be, now, are they?

Hopefully the essence of faith and the nature of God's character as revealed in the Bible is worth pondering by OECs and atheists alike.

By the way, you seem to not understand that when DJP says, "one snake...at one occasion," he is highlighting the fact that such an incident is a historical matter, not a scientific one.

Why? Because snakes do not talk. Everybody knows that, including Christians. That is why they call it a miracle: because they know that that is not what snakes normally do. Thus, because it is a miracle, it is a supernatural event, and science (by definition) has no say in supernatural events. The only way to verify it, then, is by historical record. In other words, the testimony of eyewitnesses; you know, that other kind of evidence that exists besides scientific evidence.

We have a historical record. It's called the Bible. When it comes to the miraculous, science has nothing to do with anything. You either believe the historical record or you don't.

Nothing like a good Straw-Man burning, eh Ken? I personally do not believe that Snakes talk all the time...nor do I believe that every 600 years or so the Earth completely floods...nor do I believe that somewhere in LA two angels are visiting someone's house warning them of the impending disaster of their city being destroyed by fire from heaven!

I am perfectly fine in believing that something happened once and has not happened since. The basic nature of faith is that one places their trust in someone who is worthy of that trust. My faith is placed in the person that was there...the one true GOD who has revealed Himself by means of this "primitive sacred text" as you so ridiculously put it. I have met few people more angry and maligning than those who feel they were once believers.

Ken, for someone who seemingly values intellectual arguments (or at least your blog indicates this) you are for some reason being very intellectually dishonest regarding this issue. There are many arguments (false, but arguments nonetheless) to be made against the idea of a literal interpretation of Scripture, including the claim of a talking serpent. "Serpents can't talk" is not one of them. Neither is "Well, Mohammad claimed to fly on a horse! So there!" is not one of them either.

Ken,I live with two elementary students who comprehend that: (1) Genesis 3 implies that the pre-cursed and post-cursed serpent were physically different. And(2) The curse pronounced on the serpent is the same curse on the devil and fulfilled in Christ (present/future), ergo....

This is not to say that I am making the case that the pre-cursed serpent had vocal chords or the capacity for human language. Just the case that my elementary students seem to have understood more from the text than you have.

Even D.A. Carson says that reading Gen 1&2 is a tricky thing because it is a mixed genre bag. That is not the question I am dealing with here..

The question I am dealing with here is the statement -- the overt, concrete, doctrinal statement -- that there is no Historical Adam. This is not about whether someone shares my commitments to the right hermeneutical grid for discerning days or periods: this is about whether someone is disposing of the doctrine of the fall of man by disposing of the man who fell -- and item Keller certainly is concerned about, and an item I think Bishop Wright has not completely come clean about one way or the other.

Dr. Bill says: "Too bad Darrel Falk won’t admit the possibility that the evidence God left behind, no matter where it points, isn’t to be trusted in and of itself"

So I guess Paul is just blowing smoke in Romans 1:20 where he says, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made".

If everything we see in nature confirming evolution and an old earth is just a big lie, it makes this passage in Romans rather pointless. If what you say is true, then we can't truly understand anything by observing what has been made.

Steve, here you go again. Nothing I've said provokes a problem with Romans. False dichotomy! The issue isn't "we can't truly understand anything by observing what has been made;" it's only a problem when it becomes observing everything by what has been made. Don't ignore my point - science is a non-starter with miracles, and God calls us to believe what He has revealed about Himself and His work.

As soon as you begin, as you have, to place your interpretation (or the interpretation of thousands of unbelieving scientists) of the scientific data, in judgment of the very words of God, you know you're off track.

All sorts of false premises. Mangling of Romans 1:20, which says nothing about evolution, and implies nothing positive about pretending uncongenial parts of God's word is a lie, as the Biologos types necessarily do.

You left out the most important part of doing real science. Real science takes in all the evidence.

That is the second craziest thing I've read on this thread all day, and we've had some doozies.

You think if the world is "young," then somehow it is a lie? Even though Genesis 1-2 clearly can be read as having a young universe/earth? How is it a lie if God plainly said it was made in 6 real days? It's like saying God said, "Hey Steve, I made all this in 6 days." And you say, "But it looks really old!" And God says, "I made it all in 6 days. For real." And you say, "Liar!"

Further, to even pretend that noticing the invisible attributes of God in nature hinges upon recognizing that macro-evolution is true and that the earth is really old is ludicrous. Surely, you see how ridiculous that is in light of the fact that, like it or not, young earthers have seen His invisible attributes in the stars just fine without believing that they are a billion or so years old.

Finallly, I think you are simply being uncharitable to the comment you quote. I don't think that, as you imply, that Dr. Bill meant all evidence is worthless. Rather, I think He meant that if God says He made something in 6 days and you read the evidence as it being much older, you aren't listening very well to the Maker.

BTW, do you believe in creation ex nihilo? If so, I wonder what you think it looked like when it was all "new"? I'm serious, not just poking fun. What does "new" even mean in a universe created out of nothing?

Pardon me for jumping in here with what I would have thought should be obvious but ...

Exactly where in scripture does it indicate that the "Serpent" was a snake, and thus wthout vocal cords before the curse? Since Genesis appears to indicate that the serpent did not crawl on its belly before the curse why is it supposed it could not speak before that same curse?

Here's something about this discussion which bothers me -- the problem of correctability in practice and not just in theory.

In theory, we Christians are semper reformata, yes? We know our theology is probably wrong in some way, but since we admit we are fallible we may not yet know what are actual faults are. It's unlikely we're wrong theologically about Adam as a guy in history who causes and represents something real, but there are other things we could be wrong about -- like days or ages (maybe). So as DJP says, everyone is an inerrantist -- and while we say it's the Bible which is our inerrant source of authority, we practice as if our systematics are wholly inerrant.

That's "us", and we should wear that.

The massive irony is that the alleged "scientific" crowd has totally invested infallibility in their current reckoning of who things are and came to be that way in spite of an abyssmal history regarding simple accuracy, let alone actual right interpretation. And these are the guys who say they are "self-correcting" -- the slavish english version of "semper reformata".

If the science side was as actually-epistemically-humble as the require the theological side to be when approaching this subject, I think we could all at least have a reasonable discussion. But because is convinced that its interpretations cannot and will not change in spite of their own self-reported history, the discussion stops are "no, you're wrong."

I've yet to see the science guy who's really willing to say, "Well, we're really interpreting and making some broad assumptions." Will it happen in this thread?

So you believe the Bible could be true about Adam and Eve, not to mention Cain and Abel, and Seth, and Enoch, who walked with God, and God took him, and Methuselah, who live 987 years, and on down the line to Moses, who actually wrote all these words, and names God gave him, for Moses actually spoke with God face to face.

Same line of questions for you that Ken got...I'll copy and paste to make it simple for you...

Did you do the research and figure out all the DNA stuff yourself? Did you bother taking a class in Microbiology or was that just too hard and you counted on somebody else to tell you what they think? The reason I ask is that my wife became even more amazed at the work of God upon her studies during nursing school. After looking at just a couple of complex functions of the human body myself, it is clear that it is too complex for humans to have evolved from some glob of chemicals or whatever people use as the first source of life. There is NO WAY that evolution can make sense of how human organisms work. It's impossible.

The guest-blogger Denis Lamoureux rejects Adam as a historical person; two weeks earlier the guest-blogger Tremper Longman said that "I have not resolved this issue in my own mind", though he agrees with Lamoureux that a historical Adam isn't necessary.

So, is "no historical Adam" the position of Biologos, or a position allowed in Biologos? (Is it like the Pyromaniacs and sola scriptura, or more like the Pyromaniacs and dispensationalism, as far as "there's dissent" goes?)

I get the impression that it's not a rare position; it's probably their majority position; it's not their universal position; it could be close.

So I guess Paul is just blowing smoke in Romans 1:20 where he says, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made".

Steve, either you are ignorant of Romans 1 or intellectually dishonest. You intentionally left out the next 2 verses, which would completely blow up your point. Let me put in the next 2 verses so we can get at the point Paul is making.

"For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures."

So ya, a person can look at the world and see there is a God, but because of sin he doesn't want to acknowledge the truth. After the fall, natural revelation cannot be trusted. Every unbeliever twists nature to fit their corrupt worldview. (Some believers do this to.) This is why God gave us Scripture. Not so we could have nature plus Scripture. Of the two, Scripture alone can be trusted (Sola Scriptura). If you think everyone can look at nature and see the truth of God, then there would be no atheists.

The biblical pattern is clear, deny what God has clearly revealed and the next steps degenerates to being a scoffer.

But the thing is that we claim others are denying what we believe the Bible teaches. What if the Bible does not teach what we are convinced it teaches?

mikeb -

Are you serious? Enns, the guy who denies innerrancy in the Bible, is your credible resource? He starts off the video saying Paul was wrong and continues with seeing how much of the Bible we can deny and still call ourselves Christian. "Paul does not determine that issue for us" really means "the Bible does not determine if Adam was real or not". Who does determine then, Mr. Enns? Oh, that's right, man does, through science of course!

Enns believes the Scripture is the infallible, God-breathed word of God. I don't believe you are being fair, but rather quite reactionary.

He is not saying Paul is wrong. Listen to the video again. He is saying Paul was correct within his specific historical, cultural and scientific context and understanding. But Paul didn't have some of the scientific, biological and geological information we have today. Just like Jews thought we lived in a geocentric universe. And, yes, they would knowing the lack of resources in their day. But now we know we live in a heliocentric universe. But the early heliocentrists were labelled as outright heretics for a while. We cannot even fathom such now, some 400 years later.

And I believe my grandchildren (not yet born) will laugh at some of the things I believe both biblically and scientifically because they will have much more information to work with.

So, the idea is not to cut away at the teaching of Scripture about Adam. It is absolutely important - in both Gen 1-3 and Rom 5. But, what is being taught is not always intrinsically tied in to what we are convinced is being taught.

Are you serious? Enns, the guy who denies innerrancy in the Bible, is your credible resource? He starts off the video saying Paul was wrong and continues with seeing how much of the Bible we can deny and still call ourselves Christian. "Paul does not determine that issue for us" really means "the Bible does not determine if Adam was real or not". Who does determine then, Mr. Enns? Oh, that's right, man does, through science of course!

Enns believes the Scripture is the infallible, God-breathed word of God. I don't believe you are being fair, but rather quite reactionary.

He is not saying Paul is wrong. Listen to the video again. He is saying Paul was correct within his specific historical, cultural and scientific context and understanding. But Paul didn't have some of the scientific, biological and geological information we have today. Just like Jews thought we lived in a geocentric universe. And, yes, they would knowing the lack of resources in their day. But now we know we live in a heliocentric universe. But the early heliocentrists were labelled as outright heretics for a while. We cannot even fathom such now, some 400 years later.

And I believe my grandchildren (not yet born) will laugh at some of the things I believe both biblically and scientifically because they will have much more information to work with.

So, the idea is not to cut away at the teaching of Scripture about Adam. It is absolutely important - in both Gen 1-3 and Rom 5. But, what is being taught is not always intrinsically tied in to what we are convinced is being taught.

So if Paul was mistaken due to a lack of scientific knowledge, then he was wrong. And you can't believe that Paul was wrong and still believe in an inerrant Bible.

This is where I think we must recognise a difference between truth and empirical fact. From a post-Englightenment, modernist era we intrinsically tie the two together. I do not believe those of the ancient-near eastern times in which the OT was written, nor those of the first-century inherently connected the two.

So Paul was not wrong at all. He absolutely taught the truth. I don't believe the BioLogos people say Paul is wrong. People interpret their words as saying such. But what you have is Christians in this day grappling with the God-breathed Scriptures as their authority in the faith and biology & geology they understand from faithful study of God's good creation.

So no one claims Paul is wrong. They simply recognise Paul didn't know it all from a more biological and geological studied point. And you have these people who are actually looking to be faithful with Christ trying to articulate how they can know what they know scientifically in 2010 and how that can 1) be seen alongside the faithful teaching of Scripture and 2) possibly inform what is going on in certain places in Scripture.

You said "What if the Bible does not teach what we are convinced it teaches?"

You mean sort of like what if Jesus had not indeed been raised from the dead, which Scripture plainly says He was? It seems to me that someone has answered that question, and the conclusion is that we are to be pitied (I Cor. 15:17-19)

You see, denying the plain language and meaning of Scripture under the guise of humility is not at all noble. And please, don't try to paint Pete Enns as having a high view of Scripture when he was dismissed from a seminary for his low view of Scripture. His proclamations of belief in inerrancy are subject to his insistence on re-defining the term - a commonly used but erroneous ploy.

We who believe in the inspiration of the Scripture also believe that God superintended the writers so that what they wrote (or what was preserved) transcended their limitiations in the time in which they wrote.

This should not surprise us. Virtually all writers leave behind thoughts that transcend their age - and others that don't - but it takes time for those transcendent things to be recognized.

In the Scripture's case, we just believe that God did the work of time in our behalf (pre-filtering the writing, if you will).

David, the wine at the wedding gave no evidence of its origin, which is exactly the point. There was no evidence pointing to the vineyard the grapes were grown in, no laborers harvesting the grapes, no winepress where the grapes were prepared for fermentation and no fermenting vats that could be traced to this wine. There were no receipts to the vintner for the delivery and purchase of the wine.

Furthermore, if a chemist traveled back in time and analyzed the wine he would simply find a host of organic chemicals that made up the wine. These organic chemicals could be made by yeast fermentation which is the normal way or they could artificially synthesized or they could be created by a miracle. What he wouldn’t find is a timekeeper in the wine such as radioisotopes which would provide evidence of age.

Because there is no timekeeper or other evidence to suggest that the wine was actually made by fermentation, I have no issues with suggesting other methods of “production”.

If, however, I find a reliable witness that confesses to having harvested the grapes and fermented the wine and slipped the barrels in the back door and substituted them for the barrels of water then I’m going to say that is deceptive.

In nature, we find an abundance of timekeepers. The evidence for an old earth is confirmed by multiple scientific disciplines. If the earth is actually less than 10,000 years old there is no reason to place radioisotopes in nature in the precise ratios that indicate they are the result of the radioactive decay chain.

I find “creation with the appearance of age” to be deceptive and out of character with the truthfulness of God.

“The massive irony is that the alleged "scientific" crowd has totally invested infallibility in their…”

I think you can really put “fill-in the blank” where you have “scientific”. The other night I was watching Leno and his guest was Bill Maher. Maher was going off on Palin, Tea Partiers, etc. and he then started in on people of faith (not his term but mine for the sake of this comment) and the “massive irony” of what he was saying never dawned on him. Not for a moment did he stop and think of just how much “faith” his own position requires. IOW, he made fun of “believers” but never realized what a “believer” (believing in something which requires enormous faith… atheism) he himself is.

As far as this thread is concerned, what I personally find most disturbing, as I indicated earlier, is this need in “confessing” Christians to defend something like BioLogos. I don’t claim to be the most discerning Christian on the planet but, seriously, how much time does one really need to spend on that website before the gag reflex kicks in.

Can we please have gracious and irenic discussion. That's all I desire, even if we can't agree.

I understand the concerns here, as I voiced earlier in a comment about how I would voice certain things. But slamming me, or BioLogos people, or even Ken Pulliam, will not draw anyone towards or edify those who are in Christ.

If I say Adam was a man...and it turns out he wasn't. Am I wrong?

If God says Adam lived "x" number of years, and he never existed, is God wrong?

What I would say is that if it does turn out that Adam was not a literal, historical figure - which I am not outright claiming, but open to understand what some of those at BioLogos are saying - then it is not that God is wrong. God is absolutely true, and so is His word. But rather I am implying that Scripture must teach this particular thing that I hold to. And this gives no room that the early chapters of Genesis could be in the form of mythical account to explain the origins of humanity, the nature of humanity, the nature of God as Creator, the entrance of sin into the world, etc.

God is never wrong. But out perceptions of His word are, at times, wrong. Just like those who held to geocentrism were 'wrong' for so long. But they weren't wrong in that they were deceiving people. They were working from their framework. And, though they condemned the heliocentrists for so long, we know they were helpful in us understanding God's good word and God's good creation.

ProdigalThouht said:"This is where I think we must recognise a difference between truth and empirical fact. From a post-Englightenment, modernist era we intrinsically tie the two together. I do not believe those of the ancient-near eastern times in which the OT was written, nor those of the first-century inherently connected the two."

A false dichotomy perhaps? A failure to realize that all truth, all facts, are God-facts in relation to Him? Note the underlying presupposition that Paul living in the first century was 'unsophisticated' as to modern 'scientific facts', as if this negates the statement by God that 'all Scripture' is 'God-breathed' and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be equipped for every good work.'

The only way to scientifically explain the presence of wine is through the time-taking process of fermentation. There is no other scientific explanation. So, if a scientist found wine and was asked to explain it according to his scientific understanding, he would insist it had age, absolutely and unequivocally.

Yes, I truly agree that God was so at work in inspiring the authors. But remember Scripture was God-breathed through the human authors, not God-written or God-spoken. I think there is a difference. Just as we must allow for the fully human Christ, we must allow for Scripture to have its fully human characteristic. If God supersedes, then this cuts away at fully human and fully divine, squelching at least part of the human.

And you believe this because of what exactly? IOW, who told you this about what the biblical writers believed about truth and facts?

Because not everything in Scripture is pure historical factual, empirically based evidence. If we do a little study of of ancient near eastern cosmology, we see they believe the world looked like this: http://bit.ly/d0gEoQ. That is why they spoke geocentrically and about the four corners of the earth, the sun standing still, etc.

But they felt very comfortable writing and communicating the truth of Yahweh, but not having to get every empirical fact correct. Actually, we even do it as well today.

I realize that you are getting bombarded with a lot of questions here, but allow me to pose one more. The question is not really from me, but a reiteration (or close facsimile) of a question I have seen DJP ask here a number of times. Namely, if God would have wanted us to understand Adam and Eve as literal historical figures who fell into sin, how would you suppose He would have gone about communicating that?

I'm sorry but you're making it difficult to have any kind of discussion.

In your last 2 comments, you state that if science shows that Adam never existed, then we need to re-look at our understanding of Scripture.Scripture is plain. I suggest that is it non-Christian to suggest that we must re-examine Scripture where our science disagrees.

No. Scripture is inerrant (even though your last comment implies that it can't be) and science is easily proven to be errant.

Just to get a feel for how you are thinking about these issues, can you answer this one question?

If the Bible were to plainly teach that 2+2=5, yet science seems to plainly show that 2+2=4, would you chuck the Bible or change your mind and re-work the math accordingly.

I think the answer to that will show a lot about how you see the authority of Scripture.

Enn's, in the quote below, shows that he'll take science everytime.

"Most Christians understand that, even though the Bible assumes a certain way of looking at the cosmos, from a scientific point of view the Bible is wrong."

I've found your coverage of Biologos interesting over the past few weeks. I'll say up front that I do believe in evolution. I'm not exactly sure how that squares away with scripture, perhaps it doesn't, but I am sure that the process exists and what that means after that I have not come to a conclusion.

However, I do read stuff from biologos. I've always thought of them as more of a repo for information about evolution coexisting with theology rather then a dictator of evolution or theology. In other words you can hear many voices with many varying beliefs with the common thread that they believe in God and believe in evolution. Take the first link to biologos where you get the incriminating quote. That quote is only a teaser into the conclusion that *that* author came to, not the conclusion that you the reader or that biologos the .org has come to. Read a little further and you find this as well. "The range of Christian perspectives on this topic is introduced in our FAQ on Evolution and the Fall. Lamoureux’s series follows several other recent blogs that present other views on the topic, including those from Tom Wright (here and here), David Opderbeck, Pete Enns, Daniel Harrell, and Alister McGrath." Notice that they've had several people in a series including Daniel Harrell who, from his article, seems to believe in a literal Adam.

In fact, you came across something similar recently when you broke down Tim Keller's post and where he does conclude that Adam must be real. You mentioned several times that you weren't "sure if biologos read this or not" assuming they hadn't since his conclusion seems to contradict their own. But I'm not so sure that biologos the .org has taken an official position. Make no mistake they are sympathetic towards it. And make no mistake that many of the founders and people in charge may not believe in a literal Adam, but they posted Keller's paper because biologos the organization is still debating the topic. It is what all good scientists do. They assess the evidence and present both pro and against to make an informed intelligent decision. I wonder if you have jumped the gun and assumed that because they would dare publish someone who doesn't believe in Adam that therefore they don't believe in Adam, but when they publish someone who does believe in Adam you quickly dismiss this as, "they must not have read the article."

It seems to me that perhaps the jury for them is still out...of course you may still not like that given that it means they could come to the wrong conclusion, but when an organization designed to educate presents multiple people one would expect that not all the people agree. So in this case if the debate is about whether Adam was real or not we can rightly assume that they'll have people for and against without coming to conclusion that therefore biologos agrees with one vs the other.

This is the salient point. Just because they post an article defending a non-literal Adam doesn't mean that the organization believes in a non-literal Adam. Now maybe you are right and Biologos will start to aggressively promote non-literal Adam, but from what I can tell they are presenting both sides, as evidence by the Tim Keller piece, and allow the reader to make up his own mind. That is just good education in my book. So when they post Lamoureux you assume that it is because they believe in a non-literal Adam, but when they post Keller you assume they just didn't read him. I'm confused.

if God would have wanted us to understand Adam and Eve as literal historical figures who fell into sin, how would you suppose He would have gone about communicating that?

No doubt that is a tough question. I can only speculate and can imagine my answers fail miserably.

First off, if I think God wanted an actual factual historical recording of the beginnings of the first human beings, I suppose He would have begun to stir those people to record such from day one.

Instead, as we study the ancient near east time period, we see that there were quite a few competing accounts of the beginnings of humanity and the created order. Some accounts recorded pre-dated the accounts recorded in the early chapters of Genesis. So, I believe God led the recorder of Genesis (whether it was Moses or a group alongside Moses or however) to formulate such an account that communicates the absolute truth of Yahweh that would supersede the competing accounts of the day. This was the God-breathed truth of Yahweh to communicate to an Israelite people in the ancient near east what He wanted them to know about His nature, their nature as humans, and with the account headed towards their father, Abraham.

But, back to the question: If I think God wanted an actual factual historical recording of the beginnings of the first human beings, I suppose He would have begun to stir those people to record such from day one. But, as you can see, I think this was all recorded to combat against the other competing accounts of the day, to draw in Yahweh's people to understand Him.

“I find “creation with the appearance of age” to be deceptive and out of character with the truthfulness of God.”

With all due respect, I think the evidence of your own brainwashing comes through here. You talk of “age” in relative terms but the bible does not. The bible talks of “days”… “days” qualified with “morning” and “evening”. It also talks of “good” and “very good” in reference to those “days”.

Furthermore, whoever said that thousands of years aren’t a long time? The fact that you think of thousands of years as not being a long time is more evidence of your brainwashing IMO. I have no problem standing at the Grand Canyon and considering the creation of the earth itself, the flood (with all that water and even bursting of the ground going on) and “thousands” (not millions) of years as not only being an adequate explanation of what I see but not being in conflict with the bible at all.

IOW, there’s no deception coming from the God of the bible but instead from whomever you are giving authority over Him.

I'm sorry but you're making it difficult to have any kind of discussion.

I can only suppose you are reading my comments wrong. I don't want to bash you or anyone else. I want healthy, irenic, gracious, Christlike discussion. Please know that.

In your last 2 comments, you state that if science shows that Adam never existed, then we need to re-look at our understanding of Scripture. Scripture is plain. I suggest that is it non-Christian to suggest that we must re-examine Scripture where our science disagrees.

Let me make clear that I am saying that I believe we have primordial parents. But that their names might not have been Adam and Eve. And if evolution is part of the way God undertook the creative process, then this doesn't entail that the early chapters of Genesis have to be taken 100% literal. Maybe that is a better explanation.

I suggest that is it non-Christian to suggest that we must re-examine Scripture where our science disagrees.

We've done this before. I keep pointing to the 16th century movement towards heliocentrism. Remember, those guys were considered heretics. But then they realised that good and true science taught us such. So people's views of the Bible's wording in those areas changed.

Again, we don't just change for change sake. But we realise we don't know everything and God might just reveal something, even through good and faithful science, that challenges our currently held beliefs.

ProdigalThought said:"Some accounts recorded pre-dated the accounts recorded in the early chapters of Genesis."

I feel like the still-born child left out in the cold that everyone sees, but no one stops to address or take up in their arms to comfort and seek relief.

Your statement above, ProdigalThought, assumes that Moses wrote Genesis and The Torah from about 1500 B.C. while in Egypt or shortly thereafter while in transit to the "Promised Land'. But what if Moses was the redactor and editor of previously recorded information passed down from Adam through Joseph? Or was Adam unable to write and had no written language? Was God Himself not able to communicate in propositional language to Adam His description of how He created the world, and the details thereof?

Yet it was an excellent vintage, maybe a 23 A.D., or perhaps a 552 B.C.!

Jesus said: "Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast." And they bear it.When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom.And saith unto him, "Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when the men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now."Jesus did this miracle to "manifest forth His glory, and His disciples believed on Him."

Thanks for sharing about the wine David. What a passage of Scripture for us to read, study, and know.

Quote Steve Gentry:In nature, we find an abundance of timekeepers. The evidence for an old earth is confirmed by multiple scientific disciplines. If the earth is actually less than 10,000 years old there is no reason to place radioisotopes in nature in the precise ratios that indicate they are the result of the radioactive decay chain.

(Hmmmm.... I already answered this in my initial post above.) Yes, there is a reason: so that we will be saved by grace alone through faith alone. And no, look at 2 Peter 3 -- timekeepers aren't to be trusted. So, are you going to believe what God said, or not?

Sorry Ken, but Luther on Copernicus is specious because he and his hermenuetic weren't infallible. But let's give him credit that, at least in this instance, his error was to the side of faith.

"...if the serpent mentioned in Genesis 3 is like serpents we see today (and your inerrant book doesn't say there was anything unique about that serpent), then of course he couldn't speak. Note your inerrant text does not say that the devil spoke through him; it says that the serpent spoke."

Just to clarify- Our innerant Book does say a substantial amount more about that particular serpent.

In Revelation 20:2 there is a clear reference to the Devil as the serpent from Genesis. He was unique. There are plenty of other references to normal snakes as well.

Our Book also teaches that this serpent "..has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ."

Ken- your unbelief has less to with facts, reason, and evidence but more to do with this spiritual blindness of mind.

You are literaly lack the capacity to believe, not the information you need to be convinced.

Our book also says that "In Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

Jesus Christ is the answer to your unbelief.

He created the universe, he sustains the universe, he is Lord over his universe.

You asked me two questions 1. Does Science prove that no single serpent ever could have spoken on one occasion, given supernatural involvement?

Yes it does because serpents can't talk. Science has never detected any supernatural involvement in anything much less in talking serpents.

2. Was it a mistake for you to adduce this as a great scoffing-point against Christianity?

No. It illustrates how anti-scientific you are. It is no surprise that one rejects what science says about the history of mankind when one believes in the existence (even one time existence) of talking snakes.

Now that I have answered your "tough" questions are you going to continue to delete my comments?

You said that Luther's hermeneutic was not infallible. Precisely but you guys apparently believe that yours is. The point is that a straightforward reading of the Bible would indicate that Adam and Eve were the first human beings. A straightforward reading would also indicate that the sun revolves around the earth. Christians were carried kicking and screaming into heliocentrism when it finally got to the point that you had to be a complete idiot to deny it. Will that happen to you guys?

I hope you will have that discussion one day. I think it will be a painful one. Pyros has always been on about theological discernment, especially from sources that everyone else thinks are benign. I would be interested in some serious engagement with the theology (and practice) of Ken Ham etc...

Did you do the research and figure out all the DNA stuff yourself? Did you bother taking a class in Microbiology or was that just too hard and you counted on somebody else to tell you what they think? The reason I ask is that my wife became even more amazed at the work of God upon her studies during nursing school. There is NO WAY that evolution can make sense of how human organisms work. It's impossible.

Now for people who "lost their faith" (meaning they were not of us in the first place, as John wrote) or to those who flat out deny God and the authority of the Bible, the only choice they are left with is to try to explain it all away. But their explanantions (or your "proof") are all folly.

ken said:"Science has never detected any supernatural involvement in anything much less in talking serpents."

The end all and be all of ultimate knowledge rests in science, is that it? Are you a student of the history of philosophy or not? How can you make such a claim, without ignoring the overwhelming evidence that secular philosophers have struggled to answer this question for millennia, and that they have come to no certain conclusion?

Has Science ever detected that a man can die a death which was physical torture and included whipping and being nailed to a cross, only to have him raise to life and then walk 7 miles to have dinner with friends?

No?

Then let's assume at least that science and the Bible have a different opinion about what is possible -- let alone what is historically real.

1. How many serpents do Bible-believing Christians claim have ever talked, and on how many occasions?

One and once because this is what their holy book says, although many Christians realize that it is fool-hardy to utilize a literal hermeneutic here.

2. By what instruments would science prove or disprove whether one serpent ever talked, on one occasion?

The same instruments that they use today to know that serpents don't talk. Could there have been a one-time exception to the rule that serpents don't talk? Why should anyone think so? No one except those who by faith accept that the words of Genesis 3 as literal.

3. How am I anti-science, in this specific issue? Because you are holding to ideas that are blatantly anti-scientific such as a talking serpent. Since you hold to that silliness it is no surprise that you also reject what science has to say about the origin of mankind.

By the way, if anyone figures out the formula for artificially synthesizing the organic components of fine wine in such a way as to betray an excellent vintage, please contact me forthwith, and I will buy the initial stocks in your company.

As it stands, I'm placing all my stock with the one who did it with a word.

I'd actually put "2+2=5" in the same category as "The Earth is not a globe" and "It's impossible to put a satellite in orbit" and "North & South America don't exist" and "Sustained flight is impossible".

For a moment, I'm willing to concede that you cannot believe that a serpent (with or without legs) can talk, or has ever talked. fair enough: you've never seen it, and doubt it's possible for a variety of zoological and epistemological reasons.

How about a slice of silicon? What if I told you that I had a slice of silicon that could talk -- is that scientifically possible?

If history told us that a snake talked with Abraham Lincoln would you believe it? No. Why not? Because we know that snakes don't talk. Ancient literature is filled with all kinds of things that we don't accept as literal facts because we know they don't happen (such as Muhammad riding to heaven on a horse). The only exception to the rule is those fundamentalists, whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or others who by faith believe their particular holy book to be of divine origin.

You are right. I am not going to change my mind about talking snakes or other ridiculous stories in the Bible. I used to believe them and I taught them just like you do today. I was brave enough to admit I was duped. Do you think you will ever change your mind? Is there any thing that you could imagine that could cause you to consider that you might be wrong?

As for a slice of silicon talking, I know this is a trick question but I will bite anyway. I don't think a slice of silicon can have an intelligent discourse with a human being. (Perhaps it can be programmed with artificial intelligence so that it can respond to anticipated or comments from the human but it cannot have a discourse as two human beings might have with one another.)

Ken,Since you have failed to address me directly with your comments, I can only conclude that you are ignorant of the issues I raise, or that I scare you enough to preclude your trying to answer me. Am I wrong in this, or what's up dude?

You've never yet really explained why you're here. It seems that you mostly want to poke fun of "our holy book". If that is the indeed the case, then I think that perhaps you ought to be ignored, for in the end you only desire a platform to blaspheme God. You have been presented the gospel, even in this forum. Repent and believe. Otherwise, consider moving on.

In nature, we find an abundance of timekeepers. The evidence for an old earth is confirmed by multiple scientific disciplines. If the earth is actually less than 10,000 years old there is no reason to place radioisotopes in nature in the precise ratios that indicate they are the result of the radioactive decay chain.

If a serpent talked one time then it was not a serpent. We can only define terms by what we know has existed. No serpent has ever been seen or discovered archeologically that had the capacity to speak.

On your reasoning, one could say that perhaps one time but only once a tree talked or a squirrel talked or perhaps one time but only once a horse flew. With that kind of reasoning, one could believe anything.

Wasn't going to chime in, but Ken, your hard-line definition of what is posible puts holes in evolution. Does something inanimate ever become animate? That is, do non-living things become alive? This is necassary for Evolution to occur, correct? But, since this has never happened (never ever been observed) and all of our senses know that this is as absurd as Abraham Lincoln talking to a snake I am sure you are willing to dismiss it as fiction. But, if something dead did become alive then clearly it was never dead. Then, that non-dead progenitor must have come from somewhere else. Now, who could have done that... and I wonder if He has a book that we could read that would tell us about it?

Listen, in all seriousness, it boils down to this. You guys have by faith decided that the canonical Scriptures (at least the Protestant canon) is of divine origin and therefore it must be true in every detail. I understand that kind of thinking. It is precisely where I used to be. What happens, however, when the world around you clearly contradicts what those Scriptures teach? You can either reinterpret the Scriptures (which Christians have been doing for centuries) or you can deny the reality of the world around you or you can deny the literal truth of the Scriptures. The folks at BioLogos are trying to save Christianity from becoming a laughingstock.

It would be fun to stick around but my wife is calling me to supper (and she is not a talking snake). Take care and don't be afraid to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Ken, I am very sorry to read that you believe you were duped. And perhaps you were, by purveyors of a religion of self-righteousness under the guise of biblical Christianity. Or something else. But not the true God of the Bible.

"Come now, and let us reason together,"Says the LORD,"Though your sins are as scarlet,They will be as white as snow;Though they are red like crimson,They will be like wool."--Is. 1:18

So is the silicon like a really strange kind of puppet, then? I want to make sure I understand your answer before I draw any conclusions. You're saying that it's possible for a person with the right kind of know-how to make it appear as if silicon can speak. That's a pretty exciting assertion about an inanimate object.

Listen, in all seriousness, it boils down to this. You guys have by faith decided that science is infallible and therefore it must be true in every detail. I understand that kind of thinking. It is precisely where I used to be. What happens, however, when subsequent observations/evidence clearly contradict what those existing models explain? You can either introduce rescuing devices (which scientists have been doing for centuries) or you can deny the reality that science itself is in a state of constant flux .

Does that work?

Ken, that is akin to saving someone suffering from indigestion by ripping their heart out.

Frank Turk said:"Speaking of aging, there's an interesting factoid running around which I have heard: apparently, it is common to find C-14 in the center of a diamond."

Factoid: 1)insignificant or trivial fact 2) something fictitious or unsubstantiated that is presented as fact, devised especially to gain publicity and accepted because of constant repetition.

Not factoid Frank, but well researched and documented, (see 'Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth', 2005, eds. Larry Vardiman, Andrew A. Snelling, Eugene Chaffin, Institute for Creation Research publishers).

The Rules

PREMISE: DO NOT comment at all if you think the "right way" to handle Christian disagreement is to make an appointment and chat over coffee first. The vortex of irony you will create by commenting will sap the hair-care products off your stylish bed-head, and we do not want to be responsible for that.

Remember that you are our guests. We will, at our discretion, delete comments that we find off-topic, derailing, un-civil, slanderous, trollish or troll-feeding, petulant, pestiferous, and/or otherwise obnoxious and non-constructive. If we warn you, stop it. After no more than three warnings, you will find yourself banned, and all your future comments will be immediately deleted.

See an error in the post? How clever of you! Email the author. If you comment a correction, expect the comment to disappear with the error.

If you are confused about how the specifics of these principles play out in practical terms, you'll find a longer list of rules HERE.

Followers

Stats Attack!

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed in this blog do not necessarily represent the views of all contributors. Each individual is responsible for the facts and opinions contained in his posts. Generally, we agree. But not always.